4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1939 and 1936 respectively and live in Tuusula (Finland), Mijas Costa (Spain) and Nukari (Finland).
5.  On 31 December 1993 and 18 November 1994 the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy (which later became the Property Management Corporation Arsenal (Omaisuudenhoitoyhtiö Arsenal – SSP Oy, Egendomsförvaltningsbolaget Arsenal – SSP Ab; hereinafter “Arsenal”) instituted civil proceedings against 16 defendants, including the applicants.
6.  It sought damages amounting to some 275 million Finnish marks (FIM; equivalent to 46.25 million euros (EUR)) plus 16 per cent interest fom 1 December 1994 for allegedly granting credit negligently in 1989-1991 and for subsequent credit losses allegedly caused by the 16 defendants in their capacity as members of the Board, managing director or other delegates in the management of the Savings Bank of Keski-Uusimaa (which in 1992 merged into the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy, later replaced by Arsenal). The first applicant, Mr Riihikallio, was the Chairman of the Board; the second applicant, Mr Ketola, was the Managing Director; and the third applicant, Mr Niemikoski, was a member of the Board.
7.  The first summons was served on the applicants on 7 January 1994. At the request of several defendants, the District Court extended the time-limit for responding to the claims until 30 September 1994 and, additional claims having been lodged with it in November 1994, again until the end of January 1995. All three applicants denied the claims, maintaining that the amounts of damage allegedly caused had not been sufficiently proved. They demanded that the amounts at least be adjusted to make them reasonable. The court requested the plaintiff’s observations to be filed by 31 March 1995 and, following two extensions, received them on 19 June 1995. They ran to 500 pages and included 12 folders of further evidence. The defendants’ observations in reply were requested by 15 November 1995 and, following an extension, were received on 25 January 1996. On 6 July 1994 and 7 August 1995 the plaintiff requested the seizure of the applicants’ assets.
8.  From 6 October to 16 October 1995, the District Court held a hearing concerning a claim made by the defendants challenging the plaintiff’s right to lodge its claims, and on the seizure of their assets. On 16 October 1995, the District Court gave judgment on these issues.
9.  From 26 February to 4 June 1996 the District Court held preparatory oral hearings. At the parties’ request, the case was adjourned. From 19 August to 23 September or October 1996 additional preparatory hearings were held. During this period there were more than 40 days of hearings.
10.  From 11 November 1996 to 25 or 30 September 1997, the District Court examined the merits, holding over 120 days of hearings. The parties were informed that judgment would be delivered on 30 January 1998. The delivery was subsequently postponed until 31 March 1998 and again until 15 May 1998.
11.  On 15 May 1998, the District Court gave judgment (running to 1,278 pages). It ordered the second applicant to pay damages of FIM 20 million. The first applicant, together with defendant X, was ordered to share this liability up to FIM 3.5 million. The third applicant, together with defendant Y, was ordered to share the liability up to FIM 2.8 million. Interest would run at 16 per cent from 1 December 1994. All applicants were ordered to pay substantial legal costs to the plaintiff.
12.  All applicants appealed. The thirty-day time-limit for lodging the appeal was extended twice and on 1 February 1999 the appeals were lodged.
13.  On 31 May 1999 the court refused the second applicant’s, among others’, request that the seizure be revoked.
14.  The court held preparatory oral hearings from 14 to 18 January 2000.
15.  On 16 February 2000, the Court of Appeal held a main hearing concerning the District Court’s judgment on the plaintiff’s right to lodge the claim and the seizures. On the former point, the District’s Court’s judgment was upheld. The seizures were also maintained in force.
16.  From 29 February to 4 May 2000, the court held the main hearing on the merits.
17.  On 25 January 2001, the court gave judgment (running to 247 pages). The second applicant and another person were ordered to pay damages jointly in the amount of FIM 22 million. The first applicant was ordered to share this liability up to FIM 2 million. The third applicant, together with a number of other defendants, was ordered to share this liability up to FIM 1.5 million. They were ordered to pay 16 per cent interest from 1 December 1994.
18.  On 26 March 2001 the applicants requested leave to appeal, which was refused on 28 December 2001.